Elementary English Learner Classroom Composition and Academic Achievement: The Role of Classroom-Level Segregation,Number of English Proficiency Levels,and Opportunity to Learn
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2020
Elementary English Learner Classroom Composition and Academic Achievement: The Role of Classroom-Level Segregation,Number of English Proficiency Levels,and Opportunity to Learn
Using mixed methods, we investigated (a) the association of the extent of English learner (EL) classroom-level segregation (proportion EL) and number of EL English proficiency levels with elementary EL academic achievement, using 2 years of administrative data, and (b) school staff–reported opportunity to learn–related advantages and disadvantages in segregated versus integrated compositions, using 3 years of interviews. Findings were corroborative across methods. After accounting for student-, classroom-, and school-level covariates, we found that ELs in more segregated classrooms exhibited lower performance, on average, on state tests of English language arts, mathematics, and English proficiency, and little evidence that classroom number of EL English proficiency levels was related to achievement. School staff consistently detailed the instructional, academic, and socio-emotional opportunities to learn afforded by the diversity/heterogeneity of integrated classrooms.
AbediJ.HermanJ. (2010). Assessing English language learners’ opportunity to learn mathematics: Issues and limitations. Teachers College Record, 112, 723–746.
2.
AtkinsonD. (2011). Introduction: Cognitivism and second language acquisition. In AtkinsonD. (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 13–35). New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Minority-Language Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
CalhoonM. B.Al OtaibaS.CihakD.KingA.AvalosA. (2007). Effects of a peer-mediated program on reading skill acquisition for two-way bilingual first-grade classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 169–184.
CallahanR. M.SchifrerD. R. (2012). High school ESL placement: Practice, policy, and effects on achievement. In KannoY.HarklauH. (Eds.), Linguistic minority students go to college (pp. 19-37). New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
CarrollJ. B. (1972). Defining language comprehension: Some speculations. In FreedleR. O.CarrollJ. B. (Eds.), Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 1–29). New York, NY: Wiley.
13.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
DabachD. B. (2014). “I am not a shelter!”: Stigma and social boundaries in teachers’ accounts of students’ experience in separate “sheltered” English learner classrooms. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19, 98–124. doi:10.1080/10824669.2014.954044
15.
DeKeyserR. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
16.
DuffP. A.TalmyS. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language acquisition: Social, cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages. In AtkinsonD. (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 107–128). New York, NY: Routledge.
EllisR. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33, 209–224.
19.
EpsteinJ. L. (1983). The influence of friends on achievement and affective outcomes. In EpsteinJ. L.KarweitN. (Eds.), Friends in school: Patterns of selection and influence in secondary schools (pp. 177–200). New York: Academic Press.
20.
EstradaP. (2014). English learner Curricular Streams in four middle schools: Triage in the trenches. Urban Review, 46, 535–573. doi:10.1007/s11256-014-0276-7
21.
EstradaP. (2018). Secondary English learner Curricular Streams, opportunity to learn, and academic outcomes. In D. Conger (Chair), English learner course taking and academic success. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Association of Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC.
22.
EstradaP.ParkS.FarkasT. (2018, April). Conceptions of secondary English learners: “They call them lifers.”Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
23.
EstradaP.WangH. (2018). Making English learner reclassification to fluent English proficient attainable or elusive: When meeting criteria is and is not enough. American Educational Research Journal, 55, 207–242. doi:10.3102/0002831217733543
24.
FillmoreL. W.SnowC. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. In AdgerC. T.SnowC. E.ChristianD. (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp. 7–53). McHenry, IL: Delta Systems/Center for Applied Linguistics.
25.
FloresS. M.BatalovaJ.FixM. (2012). The educational trajectories of English learners in Texas. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
26.
GándaraP.OrfieldG. (2012). Segregating Arizona’s English learners: A return to the “Mexican room”?Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–27.
27.
GándaraP.RumbergerR.Maxwell-JollyJ.CallahanR. (2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36), 1–52.
28.
GerstenR.BakerS. K.ShanahanT.Linan-ThompsonS.CollinsP.ScarcellaR. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades (IES Practice Guide, NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20074011.pdf
29.
GoldenbergC. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know—and don’t yet know—about effective instruction. American Educator, 37, 4–11.
30.
GottfriedM. A. (2014). Classmates with disabilities and students’ noncognitive outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 20–43.
31.
GreenfaderC. M.BrouilletteL.FarkasG. (2015). Effect of a performing arts program on the oral language skills of young English learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 185–203.
32.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.MarkmanJ. M.RivkinS. G. (2003). Does peer ability affect student achievement?Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 527–544.
33.
HarklauL. (2000). From the “good kids” to the “worst”: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 35–67. doi:10.2307/3588096
34.
HoxbyC. (2000). Peer effects in the classroom: Learning from gender and race variation (NBER Working Paper No. w7867). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Lindholm-LearyK.BlockN. (2010). Achievement in predominantly low SES/Hispanic dual language schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 43–60.
37.
LinkB. G.PhelanJ. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385.
38.
LongM. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW. C.BhatiaT. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.
39.
McDonnellL. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 305–322. doi:10.3102/01623737017003305
40.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/24677
41.
O’DayJ. (2009). Good instruction is good for everyone—or is it? English language learners in a balanced literacy approach. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14, 97–119.
42.
PennycookA. (2002). English and the discourses of colonialism. New York, NY: Routledge.
43.
PennycookA. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. London, England: Routledge.
44.
Plano ClarkV. L.BadieeM. (2010). Research questions in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 275–304). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
Ríos-AguilarC.González-CancheM. S. G.MollL. C. (2012). Implementing Structured English Immersion in Arizona. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–18.
46.
RogoffB. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
47.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
SaundersW. M.GoldenbergC. (2010). Research to guide English language development instruction. In Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches (pp. 21–81). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
51.
SaundersW. M.GoldenbergC.MarcellettiD. (2013). English language development: Guidelines for instruction. American Educator, 34(2), 13–25.
52.
SaundersW. M.MarcellettiD. J. (2013). The gap that can’t go away: The catch-22 of reclassification in monitoring the progress of English learners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 139–156.
53.
SchistermanE. F.ColeS. R.PlattR. W. (2009). Overadjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology, 20, 488–495.
54.
SlavinR. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293–336.
55.
SlavinR. E. (1989). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools. In SlavinR. E. (Ed.), School and classroom organization (pp. 129–151). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56.
SugarmanJ. (2018, June). A matter of design: English learner program models in K–12 education (Issue Brief No. 2). Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
TharpR. G.GallimoreR. (1988). Rousing minds to life. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
59.
ThompsonK. D. (2015). Questioning the long-term English learner label: How classification and categorization can blind us to students’ abilities. Teachers College Record, 117, 1–50.
60.
UmanskyI. M. (2016). To be or not be EL: An examination of the impact of classifying students as English learners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 714–737.
61.
VygotskyL. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23, 34–41.
62.
WolfM. K.KaoJ.GriffinN.HermanJ. L.BachmanP. L.ChangS. M.FarnsworthT. (2008). Issues in assessing English language learners: English language proficiency measures and accommodation uses. Practice review (Part 2 of 3) (No. 732). Los Angeles, CA: CRESST.
63.
ZhangJ.AndersonR. C.Nguyen-JahielK. (2013). Language-rich discussions for English language learners. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 44–60.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
